Maya Forstater

I don't think that's the right metric. I often see entirely uncontroversial arrangements where the tax analysis is so complex we end up 51% confident of a position. On the other hand, some avoidance (e.g. treaty shopping) could get to a v high degree of confidence.

You can probably appreciate how to outsiders 51% confidence looks like a grey area that shades into evasion , not "entirely uncontroversial"!

I'd be interested in a poll asking everyone involved in these debates what % of MNC tax planning, or intergroup transactions, they'd guess would be deemed legal if examined by a competent court.

I couldn’t answer so general a question. Most intra-group services are personnel, paperclip, etc - nothing tricky or naughty. Even for the most aggressive MNC I doubt more than a small fraction is questionable.

well maybe question could be sharpened, but I'm speculating that part of what's behind different views about whether it makes sense to lump MNCs' tax avoidance under 'illicit' is beliefs about prevalence of 'would be found illegal upon examination' behaviour

great! what's the best way of getting evidence of that out there, to sharpen the debate (possibly so it becomes more about the shortcomings of existeing laws and what new legislation is desirable)

The "Illicit" discussion is like a mirror image of the "fair" discussion people tend to assume the pornography test ( IKIWISI ) works, but not look too closely -- I think cases help -- e.g. Acacia, FQM, AMT, Oyu Tolgoi, Rio in Australia as well as ones that dont make the news